^!|il!i!ij!i!li!!|!pii)|if!!i:;!lli 


'7.  ic'oij 


'^ 


;<ss^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


*A 


% 


Presented 


O 


Dwision  ■ 
Section 


THE  HA  W All  AN  SITU  A  TION.  63 

world  to  impeach.  Judge  Dole  writes  on  January  17,  1893,  the 
very  day  on  which  Mr.  Stevens  had  refused  any  longer  to  regard 
Messrs.  Parker  and  others  as  ministers,  and  says  : 

"I  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  valued  communication  of  this  day 
recognizing  the  Hawaiian  provisional  government,  and  express  deep  ap- 
preciation of  the  same.  We  have  conferred  with  the  ministers  of  the  late 
government,  and  have  made  demand  upon  the  marshal  to  surrender  the 
station-house.  We  are  not  actually  yet  in  possession  of  the  station-house  ; 
hut  as  night  is  approaching,  and  our  forces  may  be  insufficient  to  main- 
tain order,  we  request  the  immediate  sujjport  of  the  United  States  forces," 
etc. 

We  must  leave  this  highly  respectable  man,  Judge  Dole,  to  rec- 
oncile his  statement  with  Mr.  Stevens'  declaration.  If  Judge  Dole 
was  telling  the  truth,  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  reason  why  he 
should  dissemble  or  disregard  it,  he  was  not  in  possession  of  the 
station-house  at  the  time  ivhen  he  ivas  thanking  Mi'.  Stevens  for 
his  recognition  of  the  provisional  govei'nment.  Until  these  two 
gentlemen  have  settled  this  question,  it  must  be  assumed,  with 
all  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  assumption,  that  Mr.  Stevens 
had  actually,  as  he  certainly  had  in  intent,  promoted,  encouraged, 
aided,  and  abetted  the  insurrection. 

The  downfall  of  the  monarchy  may  or  may  not  be  a  desirable 
event ;  the  Queen  may  or  may  not  be  what  her  enemies  charge  ; 
Judge  Dole  and  his  associates  may  absorb  in  themselves  all  the 
cardinal  and  other  virtues,  but  it  is  difficult  for  an  impartial  man 
to  escape  the  conviction  that  whatever  good,  whatever  credit,  and 
whatever  praise  may  attach  to  the  downfall  of  Queen  Liliuoka- 
lani  belongs  mainly  to  Mr.  Stevens.  Judge  Dole  and  other 
excellent  gentlemen  may  have  a  just  claim  to  a  small  part  of  the 
success,  but  the  chief  actor  is  undoubtedly  Mr.  Stevens. 
Truly  he  did  it;  and  if  it  be  part  of  the  occupation  of  United 
States  envoys  to  act  the  part  of  international  Don  Quixotes,  to 
use  their  office  and  their  power  to  subvert  governments  that  do 
not  suit  their  tastes,  and  to  arrange  new  establishments  more  to 
their  own  liking,  he  has  earned  the  gratitude  of  his  countrymen. 
In  the  mean  while  his  zealous  eiforts  have  made  it  imperative  upon 
our  people  to  decide  how  far  they  will  ratify  his  acts,  thereby 
establishing  precedents  which  are  very  sure,  if  followed,  to  relieve 
our  international  relations  from  the  reproach  of  being  tame  or 
monotonous. 

F.  K.  COUDERT. 


7^-i;^i^-2^^-t.— c^-v  /^-^^.  ^o^^    ^  h^ 


'    I 


THE  SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL 

CRITICISM. 

BY  THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.  D. 


The  Sunday-school  is  a  modern  institution,  springing  up  as 
one  of  the  fruits  of  that  revival  of  religion  in  Great  Britain  and 
America  which  is  called  Methodism.  The  origin  of  the  modern 
Sunday-school  is  generally  found  in  the  efforts  of  Eobert  Kaikes, 
at  Gloucester,  England,  in  1780.  Long  prior  to  this,  schools  of 
various  kinds  for  the  religious  instruction  of  children  on  Sunday 
had  been  in  operation  in  England,  Scotland,  Germany,  Bohemia, 
and  especially  in  Milan,  where  the  pious  Archbishop  Charles  Bor- 
romeo  had  established  them  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. But  these  were  local  or  provisional  enterprises.  The 
effort  of  Raikes  was  the  beginning  of  a  world-wide  movement. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Eichhorn,  the  father  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  Holy  Scripture,  published  the  first  edition  of  his 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  1780.  The  work  of  Eich- 
horn was  also  preceded  by  the  preparatory  labors  of  Herder, 
Astruc,  Lowth,  Simon,  and  other  investigators.  Tiiese  two  great 
movements  of  our  age,  the  practical  movement  of  the  Sunday- 
school  and  the  scholarly  movement  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  be- 
ginning in  the  very  same  year,  the  one  in  the  heart  of  England, 
the  other  in  the  heart  of  Germany,  have  pursued  each  its  inde- 
pendent course,  each  thriving  chiefly  in  the  land  of  its  birth  ;  but 
now  at  last  the  two  movements  have  come  together,  and  it  has  be- 
come a  burning  question.  What  shall  be  the  relation  between  them  ? 

The  Sunday-school  has  as  its  aim  to  give  religious  instruction, 
primarily  in  Holy  Scripture ;  secondarily,  in  the  Catechisms  of 
the  Church.  The  primary  aim  of  the  Sunday-school  cannot  be 
accomplished  without  the  aid  of  Biblical  Criticism,  for  Biblical 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLIC^iL  CRITICISM.  65 

Criticism  searches  Holy  Scripture  in  order  to  test  its  truths  and 
facts,  to  verify  them,  and  to  discriminate  between  them  and  the 
theories  which  have  been  formulated  about  them.  Biblical  Criti- 
cism brings  the  student  near  to  the  original  Bible,  so  that  it  be- 
comes more  real,  more  vivid,  more  lively,  and  so  more  impressive 
and  attractive.  These  are  the  very  qualities  of  the  Bible  which 
enable  the  Sunday-school  teacher  to  understand  it,  and  which 
impart  to  him  the  ability  to  teach  it  to  his  scholars.  The  har- 
monious combination  of  these  two  great  enterprises  of  our  century 
will  accomplish  an  enormous  gain  for  the  study  of  the  Bible 
in  the  Christian  Church. 

For  nearly  eighteen  centuries  the  Christian  Church  marched 
through  history  winning  its  greatest  triumphs  Avithout  the  help 
of  the  Sunday-school.  It  accomplished  the  most  essential  parts 
of  the  work  of  the  Sunday-school  by  catechetical  schools  of 
various  kinds  conducted  by  pastors  and  their  helpers.  These 
catechetical  schools  date  from  the  beginnings  of  the  Christian 
Church  ;  they  were  involved  in  the  Christian  sacraments  of  Holy 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  the  training  necessary  for 
participation  in  them.  It  was  largely  owing  to  the  multiplica- 
tion of  sects  in  Great  Britain  and  America  and  the  immense 
numbers  of  children  who  were  brought  up  by  their  parents  with- 
out baptism  and  entirely  apart  from  churchly  influences  that 
made  the  Sunday-school  a  necessity.  The  need  of  the  Sunda}^- 
school  has  not  been  so  great  in  those  countries  where  there  are 
few  if  any  dissenting  sects  and  where  all  the  children  are  baptized 
and  are  expected  at  the  proper  time  to  undergo  the  training 
necessary  for  confirmation. 

The  usefulness  of  the  Sunday-school  is  also  involved  in  the 
question  of  religious  education  in  the  Common  School,  On  the 
continent  of  Europe,  in  most  countries,  religious  instruction  is 
given  in  the  national  schools,  or  in  parochial  schools.  Under 
these  circumstances  Sunday-schools  have  little  place.  But  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  where  religious  instruction  is  banished 
from  the  common  schools,  where  else  shall  the  religious  instruc- 
tion  be  imparted  to  the  children  who  attend  the  common  schools 
unless  in  the  Sunday-school  ? 

The  American  Sunday-school  has,  in  most  cases,  to  compre- 
hend all  the  problems  of  religious  instruction  that  are  involved 
[1]  in  the  daily  religious  instruction  of  parochial  schools  and  of 
VOL.  CLVIII. — NO.  446.  5 


66  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

the  national  schools  of  Europe  ;  [2]  in  the  catechetical  training 
for  confirmation  ;  [3]  in  the  special  work  of  the  Sunday-school 
itself.  All  of  these  great  tasks  are  to  be  accomplished  in  the 
American  Sunday-school  in  the  limited  time  of  one  hour  on  Sun- 
days. The  American  Sunday-school  does  not  succeed  in  these 
tasks.  It  cannot.  Practically  it  limits  itself  in  most  cases  to  its 
own  special  work.  That  is  the  reason  why  wise  pastors  insist 
upon  having  catechetical  classes  of  their  own.  That  is  the  reason 
why  thinking  men  of  other  denominations  than  the  Eoman 
Catholic  are  urging  that  in  some  way  religious  instruction  should 
be  given  in  common  schools. 

The  teachers  of  parochial  schools  and  of  national  schools  are 
well  trained.  They  are  required  to  undertake  special  preparatory 
studies,  and  to  sustain  examinations  which  will  qualify  them  and 
accredit  them  as  competent  teachers.  The  classes  in  preparation 
for  confirmation  are  ordinarily  conducted  by  thoroughly  educated 
pastors.  But  the  teachers  of  Sunday-schools  are  commonly  pious 
young  peoj^le  who  have  had  little,  if  an}-,  training  in  the  art  of 
teaching  or  in  Biblical  study  or  in  the  doctrines  or  customs  of 
their  Church,  and  whose  qualifications  have  not  been  tested  by 
examinations.  The  actual  situation  is  that  for  five  days  of  the 
week  the  children  are  taught  by  experienced,  well-trained,  and 
approved  teachers  in  all  the  common  studies  of  our  schools  ;  but 
on  Sunday  they  are  taught  for  a  single  hour,  too  often  by  inex- 
perienced and  untrained  teachers,  in  the  most  sacred  matters  of 
our  holy  religion.  Many  efforts  have  been  made  by  earnest 
Sunday-school  workers  to  give  teachers  the  preparation  which 
they  need  to  meet  their  classes  ;  but  this  can  be  accomplished  only 
by  a  comprehensive  and  thorough  enterprise  conducted  on  sound 
principles  of  education.  The  most  hopeful  movement  in  recent 
times  is  the  organization  of  the  Bible  Study  Union  to  encourage 
theuseof  the  Blakeslee  Graded  Lessons.  The  difficulty  of  the 
situation  is  that  the  most  of  the  lesson  helps,  which  have  been 
examined  by  the  writer,  contain  a  large  amount  of  crude,  undi- 
gested material ;  good,  bad,  and  indifferent  statements  mingled 
without  discrimination  ;  tradititional  opinions,  speculative  apol- 
ogetics, and  mere  guesses,  presented  as  if  they  were  the  truth  of 
God  ;  anything  and  everything  which  may  be  used  for  illustrat- 
ing the  lesson,  with  indifference  whether  it  corresponds  with 
truth  or  fact.     If  such  rubbish  is  to  be  taught  in  the  American 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  67 

Sunday-school  the  word  of  God  contained  in   Holy  Scripture  will 
hardly  emerge  through  it. 

The  International  Lessons  for  1894,  used  in  the  most  of  the 
American  Sunday-schools,  cover  ground  which,  more  than  any 
other,  comes  into  relation  with  modern  Biblical  criticism.  The 
lessons  for  the  first  half  of  the  year  are  in  the  books  of  Genesis 
and  Exodus;  for  the  second  half  of  the  year  in  the  Gospels. 
These  come  in  contact  with  the  Lower  Criticism,  the  Higher 
Criticism,  Historical  Criticism,  and  Biblical  Theology.  It  is  dif- 
ficult to  see  how  any  except  teachers  in  the  more  elementary 
classes  can  avoid  these  departments  of  criticism.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  this  selection  of  lessons  was  wise  in  view  of  the  great 
agitation  of  the  public  mind  of  several  denominations  about 
Biblical  criticism.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  attention  of  all 
Sunday-school  teachers  and  children  should  have  been  called  to 
these  questions  in  the  most  difficult  of  all  fields,  for  the  next 
six  months.  But  it  is  now  too  late  for  doubts  and  regrets.  The 
American  Sunday-school  is  now  obliged  to  face  the  questions  of 
Biblical  criticism. 

1.  Textual  criticism  has  to  determine,  by  the  study  of  manu- 
scripts, versions,  citations,  and  the  laws  of  transmission,  what  was 
the  exact  original  text  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Sunday-school 
depends  upon  translations  from  the  original  text.  Which  trans- 
lation shall  be  followed,  the  Common  Version  or  the  Eevised 
Version?  or  shall  the  teacher  and  student  compare  the  two  and 
make  his  choice  between  them?  Shall  he  take  into  consideration 
the  readings  of  the  ancient  versions  given  in  the  margin  of  the 
Kevised  Version  or  refuse  to  consider  them  ?  Shall  he  take 
account  of  the  readings  suggested  by  the  best  modern  critics  as 
carefully  collected  in  the  Variorum  Bible  ?  Just  as  soon  as  the 
teacher  or  scholar  deviates  in  any  respect  from  the  Common 
V^ersion,  he,  to  the  extent  of  his  deviations,  enters  into  the  work  of 
Textual  Criticism.  If  he  is  not  content  to  rest  on  the  Com- 
mon Version,  is  he  competent  to  decide  himself  between  the  two 
versions  without  evidence  ?  He  must,  therefore,  in  all  honesty,  go 
to  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version;  he  will  act  wisely  if  he  re- 
sort to  the  Variorum  Bible,  where  the  names  of  the  principal 
authorities  are  given  for  every  variation,  and  there  is  room  for 
discrimination. 

2.  The  higher  criticism  has  to  determine  these  four  questions: 


Qg  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

(rt)  The  integrity;  (b)  the  authenticity;  (c)  tlic  literary  style;  and 
{(l),  the  credibility  of  the  writing.  It  is  diflficult  to  see  how 
these  questions  can  be  avoided  in  the  study  of  Genesis  and  Exodus. 
[a)  Who  wrote  Genesis  and  Exodus?  This  question  will  be  asked 
in  the  American  Sunday-schools  this  coming  year  as  never  before. 
Tlie  lesson  helps,  many  of  them,  state  the  traditional  opinion  that 
Moses  wrote  these  books,  without  modification.  Some  state  that 
Moses  used  older  documents  and  so  compiled  the  books.  But 
other  lesson  helps  recognize  that  Biblical  criticism  has  shown 
that  Moses  did  not  write  these  books  and  that  the  author  is  un- 
known. The  teachers  and  scholars  will  often  be  perplexed 
by  this  difference  of  opinion.  When  they  turn  away  from  their 
lesson  helps  to  the  larger  works  upon  the  Bible,  they  will  see 
that  Biblical  critics  are  practically  unanimous  in  their  opinions 
on  this  question.  It  matters  little  if  a  few  American  professors, 
in  theological  seminaries  renowned  for  their  extreme  conserva- 
tism, hold  the  traditional  opinion,  when  the  majority  of  Ameri- 
can Biblical  scholars  agree  with  all  the  professional  teachers  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  all  the  universities  of  Protestant  Europe 
that  Moses  did  not  write  Genesis  or  Exodus.  Tlie  student  turns 
to  the  Encyclopasdia  Britannica  and  to  the  new  edition  of  Smithes 
Biblical  Dictionary  and  to  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  Sunday-schools 
and  to  the  Commentaries  and  critical  works  of  the  most  famous 
scholars  of  modern  Europe,  and  finds  them  all  agreeing  that 
Moses  did  not  write  the  books  of  Genesis  and  Exodus.  If  the 
Sunday-school  teachers  are  content  to  state  the  facts,  that  the 
traditional  opinion  is  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch;  that  mod- 
ern criticism  holds  that  he  did  not  write  these  books;  but  that 
the  question  is  unimportant  for  the  religious  lessons  of  these  books; 
lie  may  reserve  his  own  opinion  and  that  of  his  scholars  with  safety. 
Butif  he  undertakes  a  polemic  against  Modern  Criticism  in  thein- 
terests  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  makes  the  question  a  test  of 
orthodoxy,  the  divisions  and  heartburning  which  are  among  the 
ministers  will  arise  among  the  Sunday-school  teachers  and 
scholars;  and  if  he  should  pursue  the  unwise  course  commended 
by  some  ultra-conservative  teachers  and  maintain  that  if  Moses 
did  not  write  Genesis  it  cannot  be  inspired,  it  is  altogether  prob- 
able that  not  a  few  teachers  and  scholars  may  be  forced  into  a 
dilemma  and  be  compelled  to  give  up  the  inspiration  of  the  book. 
There  is  no  danger  of  this  in  those  parts   of  our  country  where 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  69 

Biblical  criticism  is  known  and  valued.  The  peril  will  arise  in 
reactionary  schools  where  ultra-conservatism  prevails. 

(b)  The  Sunday-school  teacher  will  be  unable  to  avoid  the 
question  of  the  integrity  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  The  question 
is  raised  in  many  of  the  lesson  helps.  It  matters  little  that  the  most 
of  them  raise  the  question  of  earlier  documents  in  order  to  deny 
them.  The  teachers  and  scholars  will  examine  into  this  matter 
for  themselves.  They  will  see  that  the  documentary  theory  is 
recognized  as  the  established  doctrine  of  criticism  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible  and  in  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  Sunday- 
Schools.  Some  of  them  will  look  at  the  documents  as  they  are 
separated  by  Driver,  Bacon,  Harper,  and  others,  and  they  will  de- 
cide for  themselves. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  International  Lessons  for  1894  seem 
to  have  been  chosen  with  the  analysis  of  Driver  in  view.  There 
are  three  documents  in  Genesis:  The  Ephraimitic  document  {F), 
written  in  the  northern  kingdom  of  Samaria  ;  the  Judaic  docu- 
ment (J),  written  in  the  southern  kingdom  of  Juduh,  and  the 
later  priestly  document  (P).  We  give  in  parallel  columns  the 
selections  from  Genesis  and  the  corresponding  ones  from  the 
Gospels  in  order  to  show  that,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  the 
compilers  of  these  lessons  have  selected  from  the  different 
documents  of  the  Pentateuch  very  much  in  the  same  way  as  they 
have  selected  from  the  four  Gospels. 


Gen.  I.  2&-31,  ;IL  )-3.    P. 

"  III.  1-15   J. 

"  IV.  3-13  J. 

*•  IX.  8-17   P. 

"  XII.  1-9  J  [except  4  b-5  PI 

"  XVII.  1-9   P. 

"  XVIII.  22-33   J. 

"  XXII.  1-13    E. 

"  XXV.  27-34   J. 

"  XXVI 11.  10-22   J  E  [mixed]. 

"  XXXII.  9-12,  24-30   J. 

"  XXXVII.  1-11    E  [except  1-2  a 

"  XXXVII.  23-36    J  E  [mixed]. 

"  XLI.  38-48    E  [except  40  P]. 

"  XLV.  1-15    E. 

"  L.  14-26   E.  [except  14  J]. 


Luke  II.  1-16. 
Luke  II.  25-38. 
Matthew  IL  1-12. 
Matthew  II.  1^-23. 
Luke  II.  40-52. 
Mark  I.  l-ll. 
Matthew  IV.,  1-11. 
John  I.  35-49. 
John  II.  1-11. 
John  II.  13-25. 
Luke  IV.  16-30. 

Luke  V.  1-11. 
Mark  I.  21-34. 
Mark  11.  1-12. 
Mark  II.  23-28;  III.  l-J 
Mark  III.  6-19. 


Only  two  of  these  passages  from  Genesis  contain  a  mixed 
text— XXVIII.  10-22  and  XXXVII.  23-36— where  J  and  E  are 
mingled.  In  XXXVII.  1-11,  L.  14-20,  the  opening  verses  came 
from  another  document.  But  these  were  used  because  necessary 
to  the  connection.     In  XII.  1-9  and  XLI.  38-48,  historic  inser- 


70  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW, 

tions  from  P  are  used  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  leave  them 
out.  The  lessons,  therefore,  give  specimens  from  the  documents 
fairly  well  in  accordance  with  Driver's  Analysis.  From  Matthew 
three  passages  are  given ;  from  the  priestly  document,  three ; 
from  Mark  and  Luke,  five  passages  each  ;  from  J,  six  passages, 
and  from  F,  five  passages  ;  from  John,  three  passages ;  from  the 
mixed  text  of  J  E,  two  passages.  A  careful  reader  of  the  Eng- 
lish versions  will  note  differences  which  shine  through  these  vari- 
ous documents,  and  these  differences  will  be  as  striking  in  the 
documents  of  Genesis  as  in  the  documents  of  the  Gospel. 

(c)  The  literary  style  of  the  story  of  Genesis  cannot  be  alto- 
gether ignored.  The  question  will  often  be  asked  in  the  Sunday- 
schools  whether  the  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis  are  real  historical 
narratives  or  whether  they  contain  historic  facts  embellished  by 
legend,  myth,  or  tradition  ;  whether  the  poetic  imagination  is 
chiefly  responsible  for  the  story  of  creation  and  of  paradise,  and 
of  the  antediluvians  and  patriarchs,  endeavoring  to  teach  the 
most  important  lessons  of  the  origin  of  the  world,  of  man,  and  of 
sin,  in  beautiful  pictures  which  are  easily  understood ;  or  whether 
the  logical  faculty  gives  exact  reproductions  of  the  truths  and 
facts  imparted  by  divine  revelation  or  derived  from  human 
authorities.  The  question  will  also  be  raised  whether  the  authors 
use  the  style  of  historical  prose,  or  of  lyric,  epic,  or  didactic 
poetry.  It  may  not  be  easy  to  answer  any  of  these  questions  with 
sufficient  decision  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  inquiring  mind.  If, 
however,  the  teacher  can  show  to  the  scholar  that  these  questions 
have  only  to  do  with  the  literary  form  of  the  documents,  and  that 
the  religious  instruction  contained  in  them  is  independent  of  the 
literary  form,  he  will  concentrate  attention  upon  the  religious  in- 
struction of  these  early  books  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  derive  from 
them  the  lessons  which  the  Sunday-school  ought  chiefly  to  learn. 

{d)  The  most  serious  question  the  Sunday-school  will 
have  to  confront  is  the  question  of  credibility.  This 
question  depends  to  a  large  extent  upon  the  other  questions 
which  have  been  considered.  The  Sunday-school  teacher 
should  be  careful  lest  he  risk  the  credibility  of  Genesis  with  the 
assertion  of  its  Mosaic  authorship.  He  should  teach  that  many 
of  the  best  modern  critics  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Genesis 
and  yet  maintain  its  credibility.  It  is  not  so  clear  that  the 
name  of  Moses  is  a  better  attestation  for  the  credibility  of  Gene- 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  71 

sis  than  the  anonymous  writers  of  later  times ;  for  the  final 
compiler  of  Genesis  used  three  great  original  documents  and 
compacted  them  together.  These  three  documents  are  three 
independent  witnesses  who  themselves  used  older  documents  and 
sources  for  their  authority.  Marshall's  Life  of  Waslmigton  is  by 
no  means  so  ci'edible  an  authority  as  Bancroft's  History  of  the 
United  States;  for  though  Marshall  is  much  nearer  to  the  events, 
he  had  not  such  extensive  sources  of  information  and  he  lacked 
the  critical  sagacity  and  historic  skill  of  Bancroft.  We  have 
evidence  that  Moses  was  a  prophet  and  a  lawgiver,  but  what 
evidence  have  we  that  he  was  an  historian  ? 

The  question  of  credibility  depends  still  more  upon  the  literary 
form  of  the 'narrative.  If  it  should  be  maintained  that  the  story 
of  the  Creation  and  the  Fall  are  plain  historical  narratives,  and 
that  therefore  we  must  believe  that  God  created  the  world  in  six 
days  of  twenty-four  hours,  and  that  He  then  rested  on  the  seventh 
day  and  consecrated  it  to  be  the  Sabbath  of  rest  from  that  time 
onward;  and  that  an  animal  serpent  conversed  with  Eve  and 
seduced  her  to  eat  of  a  forbidden  fruit  and  so  introduced  sin  and 
death  into  the  world  ;  then  it  will  be  exceedingly  difficult  to  con- 
vince many  of  the  Sunday-school  teachers  and  scholars  that  these 
narratives  are  altogether  credible.  If  it  should  be  said  that  there 
has  been  some  poetic  embellishment  of  these  stories  ;  that  the 
days  are  periods  and  that  the  rest  of  God  from  further  creation 
in  the  seventh  period  is  the  basis  for  the  subsequent  establishment 
of  the  weekly  sabbath  ;  that  the  serpent  was  really  an  evil  spirit, 
the  devil,  and  that  it  was  not  so  much  the  fruit  of  the  tree  as  the 
disobedience  and  lack  of  faith  in  God  that  brought  sin  and  evil 
into  the  world  ;  then  the  narrative  becomes  more  credible  in 
some  respects  ;  but  at  the  expense  of  its  consistency  and  harmony. 
If  these  stories  are  regarded  as  works  of  the  imagination,  poetic 
in  structure  and  poetic  in  conception  ;  if  the  days  are  simisly  the 
framework  to  set  forth  the  general  orderliness  and  progressiveness 
of  the  creation  ;  the  seventh  day  the  appended  conception  of  a 
later  prose  writer  using  the  poem  of  the  creation  as  the  basis  for 
the  sabbath  of  the  priestly  law  ;  if  the  story  of  the  serpent  and 
the  tree  are  poetical  pictures  of  that  mysterious  event,  the  first 
entrance  of  sin  into  the  world  ;  then  the  great  spiritual  lessons 
of  the  creation  and  the  original  sin  of  man  stand  out  in  attractive 
beauty  and  power  and  bear  witness  to  their  own  credibility.    It  is 


72  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

really  immaterial  to  thcbc  religious  lessons  how  far  the  poetical 
embellishment  of  the  stories  may  extend  or  how  far  it  may  be  iu 
accord  with  the  actual  facts  of  the  case. 

3.  Historical  criticism  will  meet  the  Sunday-school  teacher  in 
his  study  of  the  books  of  Genesis  and  Exodus.  The  lessons 
have  been  selected  apjiarently  with  great  skill,  so  as  to  avoid  as 
many  such  questions  as  possible.  This  gives  them  the  appear- 
ance of  a  hop,  skip,  and  jump  over  cliapters  and  verses  in  their 
course  through  the  book  of  Genesis.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  it  is  possible  to  avoid  taking  the  neglected  passages  into  con- 
sideration. The  lesson  on  the  creation  is  limited  to  the  crea- 
tion of  man  and  the  resting  on  the  seventh  day,  and  thus  the 
most  of  the  questions  which  spring  up  in  the  early 'chapters  of 
Genesis  in  connection  with  modern  science  are  avoided.  The 
story  of  the  deluge  is  passed  over.  The  only  reference  to  it  is  in 
connection  with  the  Covenant  with  Noah.  The  Dispersion  of  the 
Nations  is  omitted.  The  selections  from  the  story  of  Abraham 
and  Jacob  are  those  which  come  least  into  contact  with  external 
history.  In  the  story  of  Joseph  the  one  document  E  is  closely  ad- 
hered to,  and  in  the  story  of  the  Exodus  there  seems  to  be  a  careful 
avoidance  of  difficulties.  Nevertheless  historical  criticism  must 
be  faced  in  many  of  the  passages. 

{a)  The  story  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover  in  these  lessons 
is  taken  from  the  story  of  Pin  Ex.  XIL,  1-14.  But  the  par- 
allel story  of  /  is  given  in  Ex.  XII.  21-27,  and  is  much  simpler  and 
more  primitive  in  conception.  It  seems  that  the  story  of  P 
has  mingled  with  its  narrative  the  more  complex  legislation  of 
later  times.  This  is  confirmed  by  a  study  of  the  law  codes 
where  there  are  five  different  laws  respecting  the  Passover  show- 
ing development  through  the  different  codes  :  (1)  Ex.  XXIII.  18 
E.  (2)  Ex.  XXXIV.  25.  J.  (3)  Deut.  XVI.  2-7  D.  (4)  Num.  IX. 
12  P  a.  (5)  Num.  XXVIII.  16  P  b.  The  narrative  of  /  cor- 
responds with  the  earlier  code  of  J,  the  narrative  of  P  with  the 
later  code  of  P. 

(b)  The  story  of  the  crossing  of  the  Eed  Sea  is  given 
in  Ex.  XIV.  19-29,  in  which  E  J  and  P  are  all  mingled  in 
the  compiled  narrative  of  the  final  editor.  The  Song,  Ex.  XV., 
gives  another  poetic  version  of  the  story.  There  are  several  refer- 
ences to  it  in  the  Psalter  and  in  the  Prophets.  A  comparison  of 
the  different  Hebrew  representations  gives  a  varied  and  complex 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  73 


conception.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  distiuguisli  here  between 
the  historical  nucleus  and  the  varied  poetical  enibellisliments  or 
to  urge  the  Sunday-school  teacher  and  scholar  to  undertake  this 
difficult  task.  There  is  a  certain  advantage  in  such  an  under- 
taking, because  it  enables  the  scholar  to  distinguish  between  the 
real  and  the  ideal  in  Biblical  history,  and  cautions  him  against 
the  besetting  sin  in  practical  interpretation  of  exaggerating  the 
importance  of  trivial  and  unimportant  accessories  to  the  neglect 
of  the  essential  features  of  the  narrative.  But  we  have  called  at- 
tention to  this  lesson  because  it  comes  in  contact  with  historical 
geography.  The  lesson  omits  the  references  to  historic  places  in 
the  previous  context  and  limits  our  attention  to  the  scene  of  cross- 
ing the  Eed  Sea  itself.  It  is  probable  that  its  northern  arm  in 
ancient  times  extended  farther  to  the  north  than  at  present,  and 
eminent  authorities  think  that  it  included  also  the  Bitter  Lakes. 
But  tliere  is  no  agreement  as  to  place  of  passage.  It  was  probably 
a  little  below  Suez,  but  several  other  places  are  contended  for  by 
scholars  who  are  entitled  to  a  hearing. 

(c)  Egyptian  archiBology  sheds  light  upon  the  lesson,  Ex.  I. 
1-14,  with  reference  to  tiie  bondage  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  through 
the  recent  investigation  of  the  buried  treasure  cities  upon  whicli 
the  Hebrews  labored.  But  the  lesson  carefully  avoids  raising  the 
difficult  historical  question  of  the  length  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
and  the  date  of  the  Exodus.  Teachers  and  scholars  may  make 
an  excursion  into  these  regions  of  historical  criticism,  but  they 
are  not  called  so  to  do,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  best  to  adhere  to  the 
path  of  religious  instruction  which  has  been  marked  out  for  them. 
4.  The  International  Lessons  from  Genesis  raise  some  of  the 
most  difficult  questions  in  Biblical  Theology.  These  lessons 
spring  out  of  the  passages  in  their  order.  It  is  evident  that  there 
is  a  very  great  disproportion  in  the  importance  of  the  religious 
instruction  given  in  these  lessons.  A  glance  at  the  following  table 
will  suffice  : 


[1]  The   creation   of    man   and    the 

seventh  day's  rest.  Gen.  I.  26- 

II.,  3 
[2]  The  original  sin  and  the  original 

promise.    Gen.  III.  1-15. 
[3]  The  origin  of  sacrifice,  and   the 

fratricide.    IV.  3-13. 
[41  The  covenant   with  Noah.    IX., 

8-17. 
[5]  The  call  and  migration  of  Abram. 

XII.  1-9. 


[1]  Discord      iu      Jacob's      family. 
XXXVII.  1-11. 

[2]  Joseph         .sold       into       Egypt. 

XXXVII.  23-36. 
[3]  Joseph   ruler    in   Egypt.      XLI, 

38^8. 
[4]  Joseph    forgiving    his  brethren. 

XLV.  1-15. 
[5]  Joseph's  last  days.  L.  14-26. 


74  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

Ei tiler  more  than  five  lessons  should  be  given  to  the  study  of 
the  first  group  of  topics,  or  five  lessons  are  too  many  for  the 
relative  importance  of  the  second  group.  It  may  be  that  this 
disproportion  inheres  in  any  use  of  lessons  from  Holy  Scripture 
itself.  If  this  be  so,  it  affords  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
textbooks  for  a  harmonious  and  well-proportioned  study  of 
Biblical  history  and  Biblical  doctrine.  But  this  difficulty  might 
have  been  overcome,  in  a  measure  at  least,  by  a  larger  and  more 
detailed  study  of  the  twelve  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis,  This 
would  have  been  more  profitable  than  sucli  a  hasty  study  of  the 
fundamental  facts  of  our  holy  religion.  It  was  not  necessary  to 
append  the  question  of  the  Sabbath  to  tlie  study  of  the  creation  of 
man.  There  is  peril  lest  the  more  practical  question  of  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath  may  crowd  the  vastly  more  important  doctrine 
of  the  creation  of  man.  It  would  have  been  wiser  to  make  two 
lessons  out  of  the  second,  the  one  on  the  original  sin,  the  other 
on  the  protevangelium,  and  even  then  the  themes  would  be  too 
vast  for  one  hour  of  study. 

The  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  man  in  the  lesson  from  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  can  hardly  be  successfully  considered 
without  the  study  of  the  creative  acts  of  the  previous  days  of 
creation  ;  and  certainly  the  story  of  the  second  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis will  have  to  be  studied  likewise.  The  differences  are  here  on 
the  surface.  In  the  one  story  mankind  is  created  as  a  race,  male 
and  female,  on  the  sixth  day  before  the  seventh  day  of  rest 
dawns ;  in  the  other  there  is  a  long  series  of  divine  and  human 
activities  separated  by  events  of  transcendent  importance,  before 
the  human  race  was  produced.  In  the  one  story  God  creates  by 
saying  as  a  sovereign  and  commander ;  in  the  other  he  uses  his 
hands  and  the  breath  of  his  nostrils  as  a  -workman  and  a  benefac- 
tor. In  the  one  story  God  blesses  the  race  and  assigns  mankind 
his  dominion  and  destiny  ;  in  the  other  God  trains  the  man,  the 
woman,  and  their  children  by  personal,  visible,  and  audible  pres- 
ence. In  the  one  story  man  bears  the  image  of  God,  and  there- 
fore is  sovereign  of  nature  ;  in  the  other,  man's  body  is  made  of 
dust  and  his  spirit  of  the  breath  of  God  ;  but  inasmuch  as  the 
animals  were  made  in  the  same  way,  the  difference  first  appears  by 
experiment  when  no  helpmeet  is  found  for  the  man  from  among 
the  animals.  When  now  to  these  differences  is  added  different 
names  of  God,  different  terms  for  the  vegetation  and  the  animals. 


SUNDAY-SCHOOL  AND  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  75 

aud  even  for  the  two  sexes  of  mankiud,  it  is  abundantly  evident 
that  we  have  two  different  stories  and  two  different  conceptions 
and  representations  of  the  creation  of  our  race.  If  now  the 
teacher  can  grasp  the  significance  of  these  facts  and  apprehend 
that  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  man  is  of  small  importance  com- 
pared with  the  creation  itself ;  if  he  has  the  discernment  to  see 
that  the  mode  of  the  creation  was  not  revealed  to  man  by  God  ; 
but  was  represented  by  different  poets  as  they  were  enabled  by  the 
divine  spirit  to  construct  it  by  the  use  of  their  imagination  aud  that 
these  are  pictorial  representations  of  a  divine  act  which  could  not  be 
represented  or  described  in  its  mysterious  and  unknowable  reality, 
and  that  through  these  varied  poetic  embellishments  the  same 
essential  doctrine  shines;  then  the  religious  instruction,  that  man 
was  created  by  God  as  the  crown  of  nature,  as  the  ruler  of  nature, 
and  as  the  image  and  re])rt'sentative  of  God  in  person,  character, 
activity,  and  entire  life,  will  impress  itself  upon  the  schol- 
ars and  teachers  Avitli  freshness,  vividness,  and  redemptive 
power.  If  modern  science  can  give  us  a  better  description  of  the 
creation  of  man  than  the  Hebrew  poets,  what  matters  it?  They 
cannot  give  us  any  truer  doctrine  of  the  creation  or  of  the 
relation  of  man  to  God  and  to  nature  than  that  given  us  in 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis.  If  any  one  insists  upon  the  mode  of 
creation  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  he  will  come  in  confiict 
with  the  mode  of  creation  of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
either  of  them  will  bring  him  in  conflict  with  the  sure  results  of 
modern  science.  And  if  he  insists  upon  the  literal  verbal  represent- 
ations what  can  he  do  with  other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture  such  as 
Psalms  XXXIII.  and  CIV.,  which  give  still  other  varying  pictures 
of  the  creation,  and  with  Proverbs  VIII.,  Job  XXXVIII.,  Amos 
IX,,  Isaiah  XL,  ?  If  he  insists  upon  it  that  the  body  of  man  was 
formed  by  God  and  his  spirit  inbreathed,  how  will  he  meet  the 
objection  from  Zechariah  XII.  1  where  it  is  said  that  Yahweh 
"formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him";  and  from  Psalm 
XXXIII.  6,  where  all  the  hosts  of  heaven  were  made  "by  the  breath 
of  his  mouth'';  and  from  Psalm  VIII.  3,  where  the  heavens  are  the 
work  of  God's  fingers  ;  and  from  Ps.  XIX.  1,  where  ''the  firm- 
ament sheweth  his  handiwork"?  There  are  those  who  think  that 
they  can  build  a  doctrine  of  creation  out  of  a  prosaic  interpre- 
tation of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  They  can  do  it  only  by 
shutting  their  eyes  to  the  great  variety  of  beautiful  images  under 


76  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

wliicli  the  creation  of  niiin  and  nature  istauglit,  in  many  difEereut 
j)assages  of  Scripture.  There  is  only  one  way  to  reach  a  sound 
and  reliable  doctrine,  and  that  is  to  seek  for  the  essential  instruc- 
tion which  underlies  all  these  images,  and  beAvare  lest  we  become 
absorbed  in  the  coloring  and  traceries  of  any  one  of  them.  This 
one  example  must  suffice  to  show  the  vast  importance  of  Biblical 
theology  to  the  Sunday-school. 

Modern  Biblical  criticism  thus  has  a  double  work.  It  removes 
an  immense  amount  of  crude,  indefinite,  erroneous  and  false 
material  which  has  commonly  been  brought  into  the  Sunday- 
school  to  illustrate  everything  but  the  lesson  and  to  dull  its 
points.  It  presents  a  solid  basis  of  truth  and  fact  upon  which  re- 
ligious lessons  may  be  built  that  will  be  firm,  reliable,  and  perma- 
nent. Those  Avho  teach  without  taking  account  of  modern  Bibli- 
cal criticism  teach  a  mass  of  material  which  will  have  to  be  un- 
learned in  a  few  years  to  the  accompaniment  of  sad  and  bitter  ex 
periences.  Such  teachers  will  have  no  thanks  from  their  pupils 
— will  have  no  reward  for  their  services.  The  rewards  of  the  fu- 
ture are  with  the  faithful  teachers  who  teach  nothing  but  the 
truth  and  who  search  for  it  as  for  hid  treasures  ;  who  in  these 
days  of  battle  between  tradition  and  criticism  calmly  watch  the 
issues,  and,  if  they  cannot  decide  between  them,  limit  themselves 
to  those  matters  about  which  there  is  no  doubt.  In  those  they 
find  the  religious  instruction  which  is  most  suitable  for  the  Sun- 
day-school and  which  lies  safely  enshrined  back  of  all  human 
controversies,  indestructible  and  eternal  in  its  quickening  truths 
and  facts. 

0.  A.  Briggs. 


Date  Due 


iiiiiiiiiii 


